FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  Waiting for the Polar vortex

Waiting for the Polar vortex

Started by Mozart31 REPLIES782 VIEWS· 04 Jan 2014, 04:40
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
04 Jan 2014, 04:40
#1
04 Jan 2014, 04:40#1

" The temperature predictions are startling: 25 below zero in Fargo, N.D., minus 31 in International Falls, Minn., and 15 below in Indianapolis and Chicago. At those temperatures, exposed skin can get frostbitten in minutes and hypothermia can quickly set in because wind chills could hit 50, 60 or even 70 below zero.

Temperature records will likely be broken during the short, yet forceful deep freeze that will begin in many places on Sunday and extend into early next week. That's thanks to a perfect combination of the jet stream, cold surface temperatures and the polar vortex — a counterclockwise-rotating pool of cold, dense air, said Ryan Maue, of Tallahassee, Fla., a meteorologist for Weather Bell.

"All the ingredients are there for a near-record or historic cold outbreak," he said. "If you're under 40 (years old), you've not seen this stuff before."

 

 

So does this sound like global warming or what? And how about those "scientists" who went to the Antarctic  to observe the break up of the polar ice....only to be caught in it for 10 days....hahaha.

 

Lake Michigan has more ice on it than I have seen since the seventies and that's before the polar vortex!

sharkbok
sharkbokCaptain23,297 posts
04 Jan 2014, 05:18
#2
04 Jan 2014, 05:18#2
 Not a great time to have a massive newyear celebration and wake up as a caveman in 10,000 years time?
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
04 Jan 2014, 05:41
#3
04 Jan 2014, 05:41#3
My idea of a massive New Year celebration is one glass of a nice crisp Burgundy and a good night's sleep.  
sharkbok
sharkbokCaptain23,297 posts
04 Jan 2014, 06:44
#4
04 Jan 2014, 06:44#4
Waking up alive in the current age is better than waking up in 10,000 years time with a glass of frozen wine, albeit a very good "night" sleep
JW
Just_winCaptain18,570 posts
04 Jan 2014, 07:28
#5
04 Jan 2014, 07:28#5
-31 c here today also Mozart - but they call this warm here, lol 
PE
poi-ePro1,044 posts
04 Jan 2014, 10:12
#6
04 Jan 2014, 10:12#6
 Then again Australia had the hottest year on record in 2013.
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
04 Jan 2014, 11:07
#7
04 Jan 2014, 11:07#7

 JW - where on earth are you - still in Mother Russia?


And it is hot here on the KwaZulu-Natal North Coast.   Very hot and time for my next dip in the pool just to keep cool.    Keep  cool is a problem from now to the end of February so the pool and air condition units are a massive relief.


I am not one for cold weather - I shiver when I see ice on TV.


Mozart something tells me the next ice age is going to evolve into the future and the scientists will themselves be in the pound seats trying to find a solution to that catastrophe.   They have been busy for decades now about global warming - the next discussion point is going to be global cooling.         

BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
04 Jan 2014, 11:40
#8
04 Jan 2014, 11:40#8
The coming world government is probably trying to use global cooling along with the contrived financial crises to panic people into a world government. The latter will emmerge at some time in the future but generally people are against it and will have to be manipulated into it.
The internet must be a huge thorn in the side of these guys as you do get independent views. 
So far it appears global warming is another hoax. Environmental degradation is not.
PE
poi-ePro1,044 posts
04 Jan 2014, 11:53
#9
04 Jan 2014, 11:53#9
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
04 Jan 2014, 12:08
#10
04 Jan 2014, 12:08#10
 So poooooie do you not know how much egg has landed on wee al gore re his hockey stick model which has proved to be absurd or about the row in the united nations re carbon levies on countires given how the data doesnt match the failed scientific models or how a university in East Anglia falsified data to try and prove global warming.
One has to keep an open mind on this as it has elements of a gigantic hoax. 

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
04 Jan 2014, 16:46
#11
04 Jan 2014, 16:46#11

You make a good point poi-e.....but one most applicable to the Global Warming theorists. This hurricane is the greatest, polar bears in a particular region of the arctic have declined, it's hot in Australia in January.

 

The fact is they "measure" a  one degree increase over the whole of the 20th century, in spite of suspected manipulation of the measuring points. Since the 80s there has been no measurable warming.

 

Three things are at play......several elegant and plausible theories, mathematical models predicting the outcomes based on those theories and measurement of various variables, the only conclusive one being the averaged global temperature. The models are so complex and with so many feed back loops, I guarantee you they can plausibly be made to show anything you want. It's these modelling results that are presented as facts.....not the facts themselves, which are inconclusive.

KA
KalaedFreddieClub Pro495 posts
04 Jan 2014, 19:02
#12
04 Jan 2014, 19:02#12
 How does one live in such cold?  No way I like it here in PE the weather is not always friendly but we have no such nonsense here.  Keep warm people..
GE
generaltitPro3,164 posts
04 Jan 2014, 20:04
#13
04 Jan 2014, 20:04#13
December 2012/January 2013 (last Christmas...7th January Russian Orthodox) was the the coldest experienced in 100 years in Moscow...this year there is no snow...very strange...off to the west it experiences their worse...USA/Canada?Alaska...something has definitely up the pole...
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
04 Jan 2014, 20:06
#14
04 Jan 2014, 20:06#14
 Moz its obvious the facts are not conclusive but the real question is why are they pres ented as such? Have you a better hypothesis than the one I suggested.
GE
generaltitPro3,164 posts
04 Jan 2014, 20:34
#15
04 Jan 2014, 20:34#15

 It's just sleet,fog and very light snow...-1 to-4 degrees C...nothing like last year -30 and more.

 

Just Win went to Ufa, republic of Bashkortostan which is going east towards the Urals/Siberia...should be colder there.

GE
generaltitPro3,164 posts
04 Jan 2014, 20:49
#16
04 Jan 2014, 20:49#16

Ironically Russia is hosting the winter Olympics...starting on the 7th February in Sochi...just around the corner...some constructures falling behind deadlines...could be a disaster together with the weather going into reverse.

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
04 Jan 2014, 22:09
#17
04 Jan 2014, 22:09#17
Well it's an interesting subject, but not as pressing as what's going to happen when the many billions on the planet have to come to grips with a life without fossil fuels. That's a calamity that is slowly coming into frame.
JW
Just_winCaptain18,570 posts
05 Jan 2014, 11:53
#18
05 Jan 2014, 11:53#18
Seb: yes you are right of course the winter Olympics are just around the corner from Ufa. I am sure they will complete the construction on time the weather now is pretty typical (perhaps even warmer this year than the average). They are very proud to have the Olympics so they will pull out all the stops - as all counties have done before.
Mozart: there is plenty of hot air & heat in this forum provided by some of us old fossils - at least that is what some are saying, lol 
Given the short terms of elected officials, trying to have a solution in place before the average bloke sees the problem is almost impossible. We will muddle our way through as usual I guess.
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
05 Jan 2014, 16:17
#19
05 Jan 2014, 16:17#19
Current projections suggest on Monday we will see the coldest day in Chicago......ever. By which I mean the lowest high temperature ever recorded. Historically the number is minus 10 degrees F. It appears we are  unlikely to get above minus 13 F or minus 25C. A nippy day time temperature.
JW
Just_winCaptain18,570 posts
06 Jan 2014, 04:22
#20
06 Jan 2014, 04:22#20
-25c balmy weather indeed Mozart - by Russian standards of course, lol My Finnish friends always say there is no bad weather just bad clothes, i.e. if you dress right all is all right mate. Mind you their thinking in winter is often fueled by alcohol 
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
06 Jan 2014, 05:05
#21
06 Jan 2014, 05:05#21
 I think the Finns could put anybody under the table.
KA
KalaedFreddieClub Pro495 posts
06 Jan 2014, 08:37
#22
06 Jan 2014, 08:37#22
 

Introduction.

Anthropogenic Global Warming theory (AGW) relies on the composition of a planetary atmosphere (rather than the mass) making a significant contribution to the surface temperature of a planet at a given level of solar input.

That is why so called Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) are considered to be major players in setting the equilibrium temperature of a planet. Such gases absorb and emit more energy than other gases so it is proposed that they absorb radiation that is trying to leave the planet, radiate some of it back to the surface and thereby raise the equilibrium temperature of the surface.

In order to explain the surface temperature of Earth, AGW theory uses the Stephan-Boltzmann Law (S-B Law) to calculate what the surface temperature of the Earth should be and finds that it is about 33 celsius warmer than it ‘should’ be.

The reason given is the presence of GHGs radiating energy back down to the surface which makes the surface warmer than it otherwise would be.
 
But there is a problem.

There is another law, the Ideal Gas Law which says that the temperature of a planet is dependent on atmospheric pressure at the surface at a given level of solar input and that atmospheric pressure is dependent on the mass of the entire atmosphere with no special influence afforded to GHGs. In other words, the composition of the atmosphere is irrelevant and AGW theory would be falsified.

This article will try to ascertain why that discrepancy has arisen and to decide which scenario is correct.

The AGW Calculation.

I have chosen to use this source because it expresses the principle simply and clearly in both mathematical and verbal terms:

http://www.dangermouse.net/gurps/science/temps.html

This is the maths:

and these are the words:

“This is significantly colder than the true average temperature of the Earth's surface, which is 13 celsius (286 K). The difference is caused by the famous greenhouse effect. This is a warming effect caused by the existence of certain gases in the atmosphere (notably carbon dioxide, but also including methane and various artificial industrial gases). Such greenhouse gases are transparent to the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, which corresponds to most of the incoming solar radiation, but strongly absorb infrared radiation, which is where most of the Earth's thermal radiation is emitted. The overall effect is to raise the Earth's equilibrium temperature to a somewhat higher value, where the increased thermal radiation compensates for the re-absorption of energy by the greenhouse gases. 

The simplest way to account for greenhouse warming is to add a certain greenhouse effect temperature increase TG to the formula derived above.”


In the conclusion they say:

“Increasing albedo or atmospheric absorption, or decreasing greenhouse warming, will tend to make the surface cooler”.

Discussion:

i) Note that the maths deducts ‘absorption’ by Earth’s atmosphere to arrive at -23 celsius.

ii) The resulting figure is lower than that observed so it is corrected by assuming downward radiation from GHGs with a consequent warming effect to bring the figure up to that observed of 13celsius to give a temperature 36 celsius higher. A little higher than the usual quoted figure of 33 celsius but near enough.
iii) They also say in the conclusion that atmospheric absorption will tend to make the surface cooler but is that right? I think not, and that is where it falls apart because if an atmosphere does NOT make the surface cooler that deduction of 26% for atmospheric absorption is incorrect and there is no longer any need to, as they say,:

“add a certain greenhouse effect temperature increase TG to the formula derived above:”

If an atmosphere does NOT make a planetary surface cooler then AGW theory is falsified because there is then no need to add in a warming effect from GHGs.

Does An Atmosphere Warm Or Cool a Planetary Surface ?

It is clear that a planet without an atmosphere shows extremes of heat and cold with the coming and going of solar input to the surface as the planet rotates. When there is no atmosphere the solar energy goes straight in and straight out via radiation alone giving extreme highs and extreme lows of temperature but little energy storage in or on the planet.

The average temperature will be between the two extremes and the question is whether adding an atmosphere makes the average temperature higher or lower than it would be without an atmosphere.

An atmosphere does two things:

i) It diffuses energy across the surface and around the planet and ALL mass in the atmosphere participates, not just GHGs. That must be so because all the non GHGs are at the same ambient temperature as the GHGs at every level in the atmosphere. The non GHGs acquire their energy via conduction from the solar heated surface assisted by convection causing an air circulation plus conduction from each other and from GHGs in the atmosphere.
ii) It introduces a time delay between energy arriving at the surface and that energy subsequently leaving to space from the top of the atmosphere.

In view of that time delay the planet will be warmer than the average of the extremes for a planet without an atmosphere.
An atmosphere WARMS a planetary surface so why does AGW theory put a number in for COOLING as a result of absorption of energy by an atmosphere?

AGW theory assumes that energy absorbed by an atmosphere is continually denied to the surface but in fact that is only a temporary phenomenon lasting only for the exact length of time during which there is a delay in transmission of energy through the system mentioned in ii) above.

Once that (very short) time delay has passed, the system is back in equilibrium with that HIGHER surface temperature that we do indeed observe. A HIGHER surface temperature is therefore an inevitable consequence of ANY atmosphere, whatever the composition.

So, for a system at equilibrium the atmosphere does NOT cool the surface and that negative figure for absorption by Earth’s atmosphere should NOT be in the AGW calculation so that the inferred downward energy flow from GHGs is no longer required to balance the numbers.

The AGW theory appears to be based on a misguided application of the S-B Law.

They assume a cooling effect from atmospheric absorption of energy which then has to be countered by a warming effect from downward radiating GHGs to make the energy budget balance.
That is completely unnecessary.

A planet with an atmosphere will always be warmer than a planet without one and there is no limit to that additional warmth if the density of the atmosphere, regardless of composition, increases. 

Gravity ensures that the more mass there is in the atmosphere the more molecules will be present in each unit of volume at the surface and the higher the temperature response to incoming solar irradiation will be. The solar energy doesn’t even need to reach the surface. 

If the incoming solar energy is completely absorbed at a point within the atmosphere but above the planetary surface the heat will still be conducted down to be shared amongst the molecules of the even denser atmosphere at the surface below.

There is no limit to the surface temperature that can be achieved from increasing atmospheric density towards the surface as long as the atmosphere remains gaseous and gravity maintains the surface pressure whilst solar irradiation continues at any given level.

Removing that non-existent cooling effect from the AGW equation and replacing it with the actual warming effect will bring the numbers into balance with no need to propose any downward energy from GHGs in the air.

AGW theory relies on a gross misunderstanding of the effect of an atmosphere and of the non radiative processes as defined and quantified by the Ideal Gas Law.

The Ideal Gas Law Calculation.
The Ideal Gas Law can be found here:

http://www.shodor.org/UNChem/advanced/gas/

in particular the equation: PV = nRT

The terms used in that equation are described in the article referred to in the link above.

Note that there is no term for the presence or absence of GHGs or their radiative characteristics.

Yet the Ideal Gas Law works without such a term. If the temperature of a planet’s surface were affected by the radiative characteristics of GHGs then the Ideal Gas Law would not work, it would have been falsified long ago.

The failure to appreciate that it is the Ideal Gas Law that governs the surface temperature of a planet with an atmosphere has led to the misapplication of the S-B Law that I describe above.

That misapplication has led to various errors which I have already considered and described in detail here:The Errors That Caused The Great Global Warming Scare

On the basis of the above I submit that the entire AGW theory is wrong and that the only effect of more GHGs in the air would be a more energised air circulation but the change would be so small as compared to natural sun and ocean induced changes that we could never measure it.


Where to read more: http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9254&linkbox=true&position=1
KA
KalaedFreddieClub Pro495 posts
07 Jan 2014, 10:54
#23
07 Jan 2014, 10:54#23
This one is for Mozard - Even your Uncle is disputing it now..




 


CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
07 Jan 2014, 16:52
#24
07 Jan 2014, 16:52#24
 Global warming today is a serious problem.   It is so hot here - I have been in the pool already six times today - problem is the water in the pool is lukewarm and the air-coditioners in the house is not of much help either.  Hope for a thunderstorm - it will cool down things a bit - but does not seem likely.   
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
07 Jan 2014, 17:01
#25
07 Jan 2014, 17:01#25

Hahahaha....cool one Freddie. I can understand the frustration as we set a record low for January 6 and 7....and the day time high temperature is as low as I can remember in 40 years in Chicago. 

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
07 Jan 2014, 23:29
#26
07 Jan 2014, 23:29#26
 
AJ
Arthur JohnPro1,748 posts
07 Jan 2014, 23:54
#27
07 Jan 2014, 23:54#27

 Typical Yanks bitching about everything.

 

 A bit of a cold snap and you guys complain.....come to Canada buddy.

 

Cold, miserable and raining but fortunately we don't have Osama Obama care.

 

Stay warm and stay dry until March.

 

Cheers from an ex Durbanite.

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
08 Jan 2014, 00:29
#28
08 Jan 2014, 00:29#28

Thanks, but no thanks AJ, Obama care isn't bad enough to get me further north into the frozen tundra.

JW
Just_winCaptain18,570 posts
08 Jan 2014, 06:26
#29
08 Jan 2014, 06:26#29
Arthur John : you are sounding like an uninformed moron. Must be intentional, lol  
BO
bobbok...Captain10,129 posts
08 Jan 2014, 07:09
#30
08 Jan 2014, 07:09#30
 Here's me concerned about the effectiveness of my sunblock . Moz with all your resources what t.f. are you doing living at ice station zebra ?
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
08 Jan 2014, 07:23
#31
08 Jan 2014, 07:23#31

Waiting for Rock Hudson to save the day I guess. Actually I like the place, two great golf courses 15 minutes away, a fabulous city, world class opera and one of the world's best outdoor music festivals. Winter is a bit harsh....but in a way it's a good discipline....and as Shelley said: "if winter comes can spring be far behind". We try to get to CT for 3 weeks in winter, usually in February, and by then it feels so good!

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
08 Jan 2014, 07:38
#32
08 Jan 2014, 07:38#32
  GAIZKA IROZ/AFP/Getty Images) 3 of 24 A man surfs the Belharra giant waves off the coast of the French basque country town of Urrugne on Jan. 7, 2014.   Monster winter waves hit Europe!
— END OF THREAD —

More from Rugby

More news